Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna (Hon. Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha and Hon. Mr. Justice Vikash Kumar)

Order Date: 28-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – State Bank of India (through its Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre, Patna and Manager, Marhowrah Branch). Respondent – Rajkali Devi (widow of the late Rameshwar Singh), the State of Bihar (through Principal Secretary, Road Construction/Public Works Department), Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Saran, and the Accountant General, Bihar.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Letters Patent Appeal (No.623 of 2022) against the judgment dated 30‑09‑2022 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8386 of 2021, which had allowed the writ petition of the respondent and quashed the bank’s decision to recover a sum of Rs.3,51,020 as excess family pension.
  • Background: Late Rameshwar Singh retired as a Road Mazdoor on 30‑06‑1982, received pension from 01‑07‑1982 and died on 09‑01‑1988. His widow, Rajkali Devi, thereafter received family pension through SBI’s Marhowrah Branch. The bank’s pension processing system erroneously recorded the pension as “regular pension” and her date of birth as 02‑03‑1922, causing continuation of old‑age benefits after the Sixth Central Pay Commission revision.
  • Error Detection & Calculation: Upon detection, the bank corrected the pension category to “family pension”. Re‑calculation indicated an excess payment of Rs.3,51,020 made between 01‑04‑2007 and 30‑11‑2018 (eleven years and eight months).
  • Bank’s Recovery Action: On 17‑12‑2018, the bank informed the respondent of the excess and demanded refund. In December 2018, the monthly family pension was reduced from Rs.15,445 to Rs.7,196. The bank later adjusted Rs.3,614 per month from the family pension of Rs.11,530, leaving Rs.7,916 to be credited to the respondent. By July 2021, only Rs.1,12,024 of the excess had been recovered.
  • Respondent’s Position: The widow, illiterate and dependent on the pension, argued she had no role in fixing the pension, the error was solely the bank’s, and recovery would cause hardship.
  • Lower Court Findings: The Single Judge held the excess resulted from bank error, found no fraud or misrepresentation by the respondent, and quashed the recovery and related letters dated 17‑12‑2018 and 30‑12‑2021.
  • Bank’s Arguments on Appeal: Asserted that the respondent had undertaken, by thumb impression, to refund any excess amount, citing Supreme Court precedents (Jagdev Singh, Rafiq Masih) to argue that such an undertaking precludes equitable protection against recovery.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 8 SCC 417.
  • Court’s Reasoning: Recognised that while an amount paid without legal entitlement can be recovered, equitable considerations (hardship, advanced age, illiteracy, prolonged error) may bar recovery. Noted respondent was about 89 years old when error was detected and is now 94, dependent on the pension, and had not accumulated the excess.
  • Equitable Balance: The Court concluded that the hardship to the respondent outweighs the bank’s interest in recovering the sum, especially given the manner of recovery (monthly deductions) and the respondent’s vulnerability.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed; the Single Judge’s order quashing the recovery of Rs.3,51,020 stands.
  • All interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed.

Topics: Pension Recovery, Banking Law